If there were objective morality - how would you tell?

[Piscivore]

Define "right" and "wrong." Please don't use synonyms like "good" and "bad," because that would be uninformative.

In this context?
RIGHT: in accordance with what conforms to established standards of behavior.

WRONG: not in accordance with what conforms to established standards of behavior.

ETA: Feel free to offer your own, BTW.

 

[I Am The Scum]

In this context?
RIGHT: in accordance with what conforms to established standards of behavior.

WRONG: not in accordance with what conforms to established standards of behavior.

ETA: Feel free to offer your own, BTW.

In that case, of course we can objectively determine what is right and wrong. Let's use the example from the OP.

Suppose there are two people who both believe in objective morality.

Person A says X is wrong.
Person B says X is right.

What method would you use to determine who was right or wrong?

In this example, let X stand for: bowling, except the bowling pins are replaced with Bonsai Kittens

This is, quite obviously, not in accordance with social norms, in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter. X is objectively wrong.

 

[Piscivore]

In that case, of course we can objectively determine what is right and wrong. Let's use the example from the OP.



In this example, let X stand for: bowling, except the bowling pins are replaced with Bonsai Kittens

This is, quite obviously, not in accordance with social norms,

My defintion said nothing about "social norms". "Established standards of behaviour". They aren't the same thing as "social norms".

in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter. X is objectively wrong.

No. "X" is wrong in the United States, to those that accept that standard as valid, and are aware that kittens are being put in jars. That's not independant of a mind or an observer. The universe does not punish those that put kittens in jars, Physics does not condemn those that put kittens in jars, people who are unaware of kittens being put in jars do not care about kittens being put in jars.

Why don't you define "objective"?

 

[!Kaggen]

I am wondering that if our concepts resulting from brain activity can be reduced ultimately to physics they must have an objective reality.

The question of right or wrong has nothing to do with physics, as Piscivore pointed out.

And concepts are our only form of communication.

Then logically either we cannot communicate whether something is right or wrong using concepts or concepts are not bound by objective physical laws.

Were have I gone wrong?

 

[Piscivore]

The question of right or wrong has nothing to do with physics, as Piscivore pointed out.

That's not quite what I said. Physics describes what happens. it does not make value judgements about what happens.

And concepts are our only form of communication.

False. Body language communicates, sometimes on a level we aren't even aware of. Animals communicate without perceieving concepts.

Then logically either we cannot communicate whether something is right or wrong using concepts or concepts are not bound by objective physical laws.

Were have I gone wrong?

Everywhere. But let's not turn this into another "consciouness" thread. Start a new one.

 

[I Am The Scum]

My defintion said nothing about "social norms". "Established standards of behaviour". They aren't the same thing as "social norms".

Well, I would use the terms interchangeably, but you are saying this does not accurately reflect your view on the term, so I'll work with that. What, then is "established standard of behavior?" Who or what is establishing it, if not society?

If you're going to argue that every single individual establishes it for themselves, then you are defining morality as a necessarily subjective thing, and that would be a pretty lame argument.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post just now, because I'm planning my own objective morality thread (because there's always room for more, right?), and it's going to be a very long one that focuses on some of the misunderstandings that are repeatedly cropping up. For now, I'll leave you with this.

I see morality as a thing that is distinct from any other thing that we would define as subjective. Let's take, for example, your favorite band. This is obviously subjective. Is there anything I could do to convince you that you do not like your favorite band? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. But what about morality? Whereas you may feel that some given moral issue is good, what if I could convince you that this thing actually causes great suffering? Being the level-headed individual you are, wouldn't you change your mind on the issue, and come to the conclusion that this thing is actually not good? This is why I define morally bad things as those which cause suffering, and reduce well-being, and morally good things are their opposite.

 

[!Kaggen]

The question of right or wrong has nothing to do with physics, as Piscivore pointed out.

That's not quite what I said. Physics describes what happens. it does not make value judgements about what happens.

i.e. physics has nothing to do with value judgments such as right or wrong.

And concepts are our only form of communication.

False. Body language communicates, sometimes on a level we aren't even aware of. Animals communicate without perceieving concepts.

Hmm nitpick noted...let me add: concepts are our only way to communicate the laws of physics

Then logically either we cannot communicate whether something is right or wrong using concepts or concepts are not bound by objective physical laws.

Were have I gone wrong?

Everywhere. But let's not turn this into another "consciouness" thread. Start a new one.

Not sure what your getting at as I have hot said anything about consciousness. Robin asked us to apply our thoughts to his question and that is what I am doing.

 

[fls]

Suppose there are two people who both believe in objective morality.

Person A says X is wrong.
Person B says X is right.

What method would you use to determine who was right or wrong?

Whomever is willing to switch places.

Linda

 

[Piscivore]

Whomever is willing to switch places.

Linda

 

[Piscivore]

i.e. physics has nothing to do with value judgments such as right or wrong.

That's not quite true. Physics underlies the processes that eventually make value judgements, but physics does not dictate or steer value judgments so as to favour one or the other.

Hmm nitpick noted...let me add: concepts are our only way to communicate the laws of physics

But the concepts describe physics. they do not create or change physics. This is not so for morals or value judgements.

Not sure what your getting at as I have hot said anything about consciousness.

"concepts are not bound by objective physical laws" looks like it's pointed in that direction.

 

[porch]

Except for ducklings.

You mean the ones that triumph by becoming beautiful swans?

 

[Piscivore]

You mean the ones that triumph by becoming beautiful swans?

Got it in one.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

What method would you use to determine who was right or wrong?

If there were objective morality - how would you tell?

I may well be missing something, but I think these are two quite different questions.

 

[Piggy]

Pinker makes a damn fine case for objective morality in "The Blank Slate".

The more we understand about how humans are hard-wired, the better we get at making moral decisions.

 

[Piscivore]

Pinker makes a damn fine case for objective morality in "The Blank Slate".

Can you sum it up?

 

[Wowbagger]

Pinker makes a damn fine case for objective morality in "The Blank Slate".

He actually builds a case for an objective manner in which we can deduce the nature of human morality.

He is not making a case for the "objective morality" of this thread's intended context: A sole, authoritative source for moral standards that exists in the universe, presumably outside that of actual humans, but that humans must comply with for some reason.

Subtle, but very important difference.

 

[Wowbagger]

Can you sum it up?

The evolutionary heritage of the human species has left most of us (psychopaths excluded) with an innate sense of morals: Most human societies pretty much universally outlaw murder and theft, for example. (This can, presumably, be traced to the survival strategies of our ancient ancestors, but Pinker doesn't go back that far.)

But, he also acknowledges the morality is a function of the societies' needs and interests; and will change and adjust, as those needs and interests change and adjust.

So, while we can write down whole, long lists of "human universals" (which might not be 100% universal, because they often exclude the small percentage of psychopaths in the population, but it's pretty close); there is still some room for flexability in human culture and society.

The "slate", so to speak, is not completely blank at birth. There is an objective manner in which we can trace the origins and nature of our moral and ethical fabrics.

 

[Piggy]

He actually builds a case for an objective manner in which we can deduce the nature of human morality.

He is not making a case for the "objective morality" of this thread's intended context: A sole, authoritative source for moral standards that exists in the universe, presumably outside that of actual humans, but that humans must comply with for some reason.

Subtle, but very important difference.

If we can deduce the nature of human morality, then is that not in itself an objective morality?

In any case, I think your assessment of Pinker's argument is incorrect. At several points in the book he argues not just for some scientific analysis of the mechanics of human morality, but very pointedly in favor of specific moral arguments supported by science.

For instance, he argues that slavery is immoral because human beings are wired to want autonomy and to suffer when we don't have it.

He argues that rape is immoral because women are wired to value their reproductive freedom and to suffer more intensely from sexual assault than from other types of physical assault.

He argues that racism is immoral because we cannot expect each individual to conform to a group average even if common stereotypes are more or less accurate.

And so on and so forth.

So on one level, he actually is arguing for an objective universal source of our disparate moralities (human nature), while on another level he's holding out the promise of a method for reasonable people to come to an agreement about an honest-to-goodness universal morality -- which is a recognition of human nature.

 

[Piscivore]

For instance, he argues that slavery is immoral because human beings are wired to want autonomy and to suffer when we don't have it.

He argues that rape is immoral because women are wired to value their reproductive freedom and to suffer more intensely from sexual assault than from other types of physical assault.

He argues that racism is immoral because we cannot expect each individual to conform to a group average even if common stereotypes are more or less accurate.

Does he claim that humans have evolved this genetic morality within the last couple of centuries? Because it seems to me that the entire course of recorded history, not to mention the behaviour of our primate cousins, tends to argue against at least these specific notions, doesn't it?

I'd go so far as to say that it seems to me morality has evolved culturally in order to overcome our "human nature".

 

[Wowbagger]

If we can deduce the nature of human morality, then is that not in itself an objective morality?

Yes, in one context. But, not quite in the same context of usage that the term is more often applied to.

In any case, I think your assessment of Pinker's argument is incorrect. At several points in the book he argues not just for some scientific analysis of the mechanics of human morality, but very pointedly in favor of specific moral arguments supported by science...

That's a fair point. I suppose I could have emphasized those types of specifics with my assessment.

ETA: Some of my assessment was probably confabulated with other works of his I had read, too.